Copyright, Disclaimer & Terms of Use

This blog does not operate for commercial purpose, but focuses on referee education and information only.

If you feel that any content is belonging to you exclusively or is misplaced, please contact us immediately so that we can remove it!

This also counts for comments which restrict you in your dignity and liberty, which are abusive or insultive. Sometimes such types of comments are not directly seen by this blog's administrators. In order to make them be removed as soon as possible, you can contact us via mail (see above).

Sorry guys don't know where to Put my question but I think it is important: Has anyone seen the horrific Performance of a ref. from Uruguay especially concerning the "handmade" goal of Peru ag. Brasil? He felt uncomfortable with the situation discussing for Minutes with players and assistents without getting any help waiting for any advice coming from the head phone and after 4 minutes of Chaos took the wrong decision. He is the poorest ref on earth now, must have a serious Trauma after that. I hope he gets good psychological Support. In that point things must get better... What do you think about it? Anybody who saw that?

I have seen the scene. I don't know if AR1 could really help him. Only an AAR could see the scene clearly.

IMO it's just a mistake. Match influencing, yes. But a human mistake. He is very unlucky because Brazilians are making a huge fuss with it since they are out of Copa America. But IMO they shouldn't. Remember Nishimura's penalty against Croatia. A worst call IMO. It went their way.

I disagree. Although there is movement towards the ball, he clearly doesn't know where it is and I consider it as a natural movement from someone who was jumping. Besides that, small distance. Hard decision but he took the right one imo.

I stick to thinking that this handball should have been whistled. The arm was stretched out widely, although he didn't see the ball he could anticipate that it hits his stretched arm. According to LotG I would go for a penalty. Except this situation and one undetected dive in 25' Brych did well.

The ball bounced back from the defender's shoulder and touched the outstretched arm from that. Surely no real intention in the sense of the term and of course everything went much quicker than in the replay. But in the sense of the Laws of the Game, rather a deliberate handball and therefore rather a penalty for me. The crucial point is IMO that the replays which make it look like a stonewall penalty distort the real pace of the action.

Have to check replays whether Brych relied on his AAR1 or whether this was his interpretation.

Rewatched it. I recommend the same to you. Rewatch it in live view and live speed: Never deliberate. Yes the arm goes out widely, but this is not enough for a deliberate handball. A normally outstretched arm to maintain balance, player- and game-typical I think.

Like Jordan added, the defender did not see the ball coming. All that is at least backing the decision.

Just to add one impression: Brych had no chance to see the handball at all. His view was, in my opinion, completely obstructed. It seems as if the decision came from AAR1 Dankert, which would also explain Brych's rather hesitant decision-selling.

No deliberately handbal. Player is jumping together with the England player and is not looking to the ball but to his opponent. Then the ball hits his arm after changing direction on close distance without knowing that the ball was there. So play on is the best decision.

16' Clear push in the back in order to be free when clearing the situation is a clear, 100% foul. Brych and Dankert bottled it. It was not whistled only because it took place inside the penalty area...

I agree and disagree with you: I agree that actually this should be whistled everywhere in every game. We however both know that the reality looks different. I disagree that Brych whistled everything. I think specially in the minutes 1-25 he was pretty British. Let the game flow.

Sorry, Referee138, but there are no REAL arguments supporting the no-penalty decision in the 16th minute. Really, what can you discuss in that situation? Two-handed push in the back while fighting for a position. Can you imagine a clearer foul?

I can't fully agree with you, Niclas, regarding reality. There are dangerous play, fouls that not impede an opponent's ability to play the ball or are off the ball incidents and other 'grey areas' that are consistently waved away by referees inside the boxes but here we have a clear foul prior to fight for the ball, no more, no less.

RayHD, I completely agree, there are no REAL argument. If we 2 were running UEFA refereeing (no sarcastic comments like "luckily you don't" please ;)), I would be immediately open to instruct referees to whistle such things.

But can you really imagine any referee - maybe except Karasev, although even Karasev would not do that I think - at EURO whistling a penalty for that?

@RayHDYes, he pushed him from the back with two hands. British football is very strong and situations like this are ussualy. Many times, Premier league referees don't whistle that even on the centre of the pitch. Ofc, in LOTG, this is clearly foul. But inside the penalty area and at Euro tournament...

Weak perfomance from a ref. With big history and reputation like Brych. 90% of time he is more than 30meters from the ball. Foul detection weak. Missed 5-6 fouls . Cahill almost score after push opponent with both arms. Foul on Hart. Gives throw for ENG after ENG player kick ball out of playe under foul...

Back responding after 2 years.... Still going strong Niclas? Im pretty sure that according to UEFA interpretation this was not deliberate handball so no penalty kick. Actually +.10Good first half of the team. Regards RC

Probably a mixture. At least AR2 signalled doubts by his standing still technique. He had little chances to see it clearly. Really difficult to say who saw it (or whether both saw it, this would be the most referee-friendly validation).

Well I am german. But that does not changeht anything. Very good teamwork not callis offside after 1:1. And just afterwards clear Handball and YC missed. I have often seen Brych much better...even following his tolerant line allowing a typical british style.

Taking everything into consideration, the performance of Team Brych was good. On the one hand, 2 crucial situations were correctly taken - 1 of them can be discussed, the other was simply great teamwork.

Apart from that, he handled the tensed British derby very Britishly. Very tolerant line in many occasions. Positioning was not always good, I think the situations in 25' and later on the shot on goal blocked by the outstretched arm were mistakes. In 1-2 situations, the communication in the refereeing team could have been clearer and quicker. His line was not always 100% clear, 1-2 fouls were missed in my view. Nonetheless Brych has proven game feeling today and was accepted by 100%.

Overall - I am German so don't take that for granted - I think the performance fully met the requirements and is maybe even in an 8.5 area considering the 2 crucial situations. Football was in focus and 1 yellow card in such a derby - well, matches can go worse! Considering that this was one of not many matches so far with really difficult big decisions, I think the team can be very satisfied with what they have done.

Agreed, I would have maybe prefered a penalty whistle but play-on is also acceptable here. No clear mistake in this occasion.My marks would be like that:Brych 8.4Borsch 8.4Lupp 8.4/8.5 (overruled once because of a possible advantage)Dankert 8.4Fritz 8.5

IMO, today they had more complicated game than (for exc.) Clattenburg's team. They did well. Two crucial situations and both were correctly taken. Some minor mistakes in foul detection and communication but in important moments everything was ok. Brych 8.4 or 8.5

I agree on your assessment Niclas but I would go for an overall 8.5. In the big picture were will team Birch be remembered for... I think for handling a difficult match with two crucial decision correct and no blatant blunders. Teamwork excellent!! and some minor technical issues.

I have serious doubts about the 1st penalty incindent on ENG-WAL. For me rather a penalty than a play-on. I think that the defender has absolutely no job to open his hand like this. Especially after he played the ball with his hand.

Excellent teamwork on 1-1. Indeed the defender plays the ball and as a result the attacker isn't in offside position.

That's another very difficult case. You can see that the arm at first seems to be close to body, then just a second before the shot, there is something like a move, but again, when the ball hits the arm, one could say that the arm is still close to body, and the defender tries (too late) to remove it by putting behind his back. For me, there isn't a 100% correct or wrong decision here, Kralovec can be backed. No crucial mistake, play on is an acceptable decision. In this case, I would say the penalty call would be perhaps more harsh than play on, but for some reasons, still justified. I prefer Kralovec's decision.

9' handball inside the NIR penalty area. Kralovec evaluated it as non-deliberately, I can accept this decision (arm position, ball -> arm). On the other hand, I think he could move his hand away, furthermore his arm was stiffened what is normally a clue for a deliberate handball. Difficult, all in all an acceptable decision for me.

Furthermore: At first glance - and Kralovec hasn't any replays as we all know - it is a typical non-deliberate handball according to my opinion. Only with watching the replays for some more times, there are more and more arguments for a deliberate one. But in Kralovec's position an absolutely comprehensible decision.

No deliberate handball to me. Quite unexpected ball, he tried to avoid a contact. And in my opinion, he stiffed the hand as he wanted to hide it behind the back - what he finally did but was too late. No penalty.

However, I'm a bit surprised by the opinion of Michał Listkiewicz (FIFA Referees Committee) who stated 'it was more a penalty than not'...

M. Listkiewicz: "The ball was going on the goal, so rather a penalty, but not the clearest one. If the ball was going out of the goal, we could accept no-penalty call"... Unbelievable. LoTG thrown away...

In German TV Urs Meier deemed the handball in ENG-WAL as a clear penalty and the moderator added "of course it was no real deliberate action, but that is not important, the arm was wide out" (approximately)... no comment.

Maybe they are simply "old school". If I take Sky Germany for example, there are 2 experts for Bundesliga games: Markus Merk and Peter Gagelmann. While Merk sometimes has quite exclusive views, Gagelmann appears to be more up-to-date at times.

All in all absolutely solid and expected level performance by Kralovec. Suitable approach, maybe his 1st yellow was a bit hard, but I can understand why he chose it. Some minutes earlier, I would have wished a better verbal warning to both players involved in a small confrontation at the sideline. The handball call is acceptable for me. Good time wasting management. Odd situation with the substitution... difficult to guess what happened there, I think NIR#13 simply refused to leave the pitch.

I didn't understand the substitution situation as well. but if NIR#13 simply refused to leave the pitch as you are saying, he should not be cautioned, Kralovec simply just had to continue the game. Aren't those the guidelines for these situations?

I think the player booked had left the field of play to be subbed off, before being pushed back on by the manager. Therefore, if he left the field of play without the refs permission he should be booked. If the sub had come on, which I couldn't see at first glance, then the sub should have been completed, with the booked player forced to leave as the sub was complete. I would need to see it again to be certain though.

For me, Kuipers missed mandatory YC after 40 seconds of a match to Khedira. It was orange actually, so no matter it was 1st minute - the card should be given. Kuipers almost didn't give any warning, but at least should be stern one. Only two minutes afterwards Khedira made another foul and receive well deserved YC. If he would receive it earlier, he won't make that foul and Poland would have dangerous counterattack.

Yes Kuipers could give a YC after 40 sec. But I can understand that you want to start with a public warning first. But this warning was too soft. At least a strong warning was necessary. The YC hereafter for Khedira was correct. The second YC was to strong and not needed. Third YC ok. Overall a good first half of team Kuipers. Full control and acceptance. Official calls all good.

Agreed. Khedira's foul is actually a clear case of using elbow as a tool. Of course, Kuipers followed Euro guidelines: 'delay the first yellow card moment as much as possible'. Clattenburg did the same in his game. No coincidence here.

Kuipers very strictly kicks SPAs from the game by issuing yellow cards for all of them. I like this approach.

Yes I agree with the above, not that interesting first half with the exemption of the first few minutes where the YC was a good game managing moment imo, furthermore the other YC's are correct as well, so far fully expected level of kuipers.

Yes Kuipers could give a YC after 40 sec. But I can understand that you want to start with a public warning first. But this warning was too soft. At least a strong warning was necessary. The YC hereafter for Khedira was correct. The second YC was to strong and not needed. Third YC ok. Overall a good first half of team Kuipers. Full control and acceptance. Official calls all good.

As always, Kuipers keeps control on the match, and has the respect of the players. He is generally consistent, but in my opinion, his line is harsh, and was far too strict for that game. Yes, some yellows were mandatory for SPA, but many were soft. Maybe I feel this due to being English and used to the English game, were refs generally let a lot more go than on the continent, but I feel regardless that Kuipers should have allowed more contact, with football being a contact sport.Saying all this, he was consistent and of expected level.

For me expected level by Kuipers. I liked his performance, he was good.To answer to some comments above: for me, it is better a soft (but still justified) card than a lenient approach without cards. I can back Kuipers for all decisions taken, including the first warning in the beginning of the game, and then a few later the first YC. From what I saw, assistant referees were faultless. For me the mark is 8.4.

Overall a solid performance without really challenging situations. A very fair game, no conflicts.Did this match require 5 yellows? Did it have this character? Was the tactical approach suitable? My answer is no in all three cases. Actually Khedira should have been cautioned after 45 seconds. Understandable that Kuipers did not do that. First YC after 3 min. was correct and clear. But the YC against Özil? Exaggerated IMO. This put him under pressure, his understanding of SPA was a bit inflationary. Consistent or not, IMO the line was too low and in the context of 17 previous performances not suiting the tournament.

This time, I agree more with 'Collinas Erben' than with you. I think his line concerning SPA was suitable and important in a tactical sense considering the style of both teams. Anyway, the line in his foul detection was too fussy, I think. There were some whistles which were not really fussy any more but rather simply wrong (no foul). But he had a clear line and finally this line was successful and well accepted, I think.

I watched now Brych's situations. Very good teamwork regarding Vardy's goal.The penalty appeal in first half is really difficult to assess.Again, I must underline how much difficult is to accept the term "Deliberate handball". Clearly, it wasn't a deliberate touch by Welsh defender, but in the exact meaning of the term... the problem is that, according to UEFA instructions, this penalty can be whistled.As Edward correctly pointed out above, player from Wales had not reasons to raise his arm in that position, he took a risk. The handball could have been whistled, but I must say one should accept Play on without assigning a crucial mistake. I know that it is too easy to mark both decisions as correct, but really, we have too many criteria. In favor of the defender in this case one can say that the touch occurred after a contact with another part of his body, the ball was unexpected because deflected, he was looking elsewhere, everything happened in a few seconds but still... why the arm was there?So, my final assessment is that Brych (perhaps AAR1's exclusive responsibility) wont get a crucial mistake for that, but there are surely arguments and arguments.

Well all referees to whom I have talked and who are used to UEFA guidelines see that vice versa: fully correct decision and whistling a penalty would be most probably a crucial mistake, maximum an acceptable / "backable" call keeping both eyes closed. You listed all relevant criteria correctly, but I think you are coming too a wrong conclusion. Anyway. Handball is complicated and always stays a grey area.